Mayor Leiken called the meeting of the
Springfield City Council to order.

Mayor Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene
City Council to order.

Commissioner Green called the meeting of the
Lane Board of County Commissioners to order.

1.WORK SESSION:Amendments to the Eugene-Springfield
Metropolitan Area General Plan (Metro Plan), Chapter III, Section G. Public
Facilities and Services, Chapter V Glossary; and Amendments to the Public
Facilities and Services Plan, a Functional Plan of the Metro Plan.

Springfield Planning Manager Greg Mott explained that
there were two amendments to be considered because any amendment to the Public
Facilities and Services section of the Metro Plan required a similar amendment
to the Public Facilities and Services Plan (PFSP).He referred to his memorandum of June 4, 2004, and attachments,
which provided a detailed explanation of the proposed amendments.He briefly reviewed the information provided
and indicated that the request for the amendments was initiated by the
Springfield City Council on behalf of the Metropolitan Wastewater Management
Commission (MWMC) because of the current lack of information in the public
facilities element of the Metro Plan regarding requirements for sanitary sewer
public treatment and collection facilities.He said not all facilities were in the Metro Plan and PFSP and the
proposal was to include those facilities on the respective maps.

Mr. Mott pointed out in the attachments to his
memorandum a letter from the Homebuilders Association and responses from
Springfield City Attorney Meg Kiernan and CH2M Hill.He distributed another letter from the Homebuilders Association to
the planning commissions addressing the same issues.He stated that the Lane County, Springfield, and Eugene planning
commissions were unanimous in forwarding recommendations to adopt the
ordinances to amend the Metro Plan and the PFSP.He commented that while the ordinances were packaged separately,
it was acceptable to amend both plans with a single ordinance.

Ms. Ballew asked if the fact that two of the three
jurisdictions had not adopted the PFSP would impact the ordinances.Mr. Mott replied that it would not present a
problem as the rule did not obligate communities to adopt the PFSP in order to
have a project for a facilities treatment plant improvement identified in
it.Springfield Planner Susan Smith
added that the information being incorporated was very basic and on a large
scale; as MWMC refined its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) each year changes
would occur in the CIP that would not require amendments to the Metro Plan or
PFSP.

Commissioner Green asked what the intended outcome of
the work session and public hearing was.Mr. Mott said the purpose was to identify all of the issues and
questions related to the amendments in order to take action at a later date.

Commissioner Green asked what would happen if, after
the public hearing, jurisdictions agreed to the amendments to the plans but had
issues with the funding mechanism.Ms.
Smith replied that the amendments did not address the financing mechanism or
fees; it only provided rough cost estimates for the project sites.She said the issue of how projects were
funded would be addressed through the normal procedures that jurisdictions used
for user rates and budget adoption.

Mr. Kelly asked when the Eugene City Council was
scheduled to take action on the amendments.Assistant City Manager Jim Carlson replied that action was tentatively
scheduled for July 26, 2004.

Mayor Leiken asked how much more staff time would be
required to address changes to federal rules.Ms. Smith said the PFSP was part of ongoing planning work and would
minimize the need for additional staff time and maintenance costs by
determining how existing facilities could be retrofitted and improved, instead
of building new facilities that would add staff, operation, and maintenance
costs.She said there would be some increase
in staff over time, but those would be offset by the efficiencies gained in
plant operations.

Mayor Torrey asked if the PSFP would need to be
amended if the jurisdictions agreed to extend sanitary sewer services to
Coburg.Mr. Mott replied that the PSFP
and Metro Plan would requirement amendments.Ms. Smith said that currently service extensions outside of the urban
growth boundary (UGB) were limited to the airport and areas that had been
declared a public health hazard and that Metro Plan policy would have to be
amended to include an additional community.

Commissioner Morrison asked
what the timeline would be for amendments to include Coburg.Mr. Mott said the process would be same as
for the current amendments and that process was initiated in February 2004.Ms. Smith said that there would likely be
additional steps required evaluate issues such as cost and benefit,
engineering, environmental factors, and governance that could take somewhat
longer than the typical amendment process.She said that Mayor Leiken had recently directed staff to begin framing
what an evaluation of the issue of including Coburg would entail.Mr. Mott added that another component was
the fact that the Metro Plan did not include the City of Coburg and how that
would affect the fundamental principles of the plan.

Commissioner Dwyer observed
that the various plans were intended to provide a framework for urban and rural
development.He commented that a
regional wastewater facility necessary to address new regulatory standards was
intended to serve new and existing industrial and commercial uses.He said that 2,000 people worked in Coburg
and lived throughout Lane County and he encouraged the jurisdictions to find a
way to extend service to Coburg if it was determined to be feasible and logical
to do so.He said that State funding
was available to study the issue, but in order to access it there had to be
some indication from jurisdictions that they were willing to proceed if the
results of an evaluation were positive.He encouraged inclusion of a statement of intent in the PSFP.Ms. Smith replied that feedback from all
three jurisdictions indicated an interest in studying the issue more closely to
determine what was feasible.

Commissioner Dwyer said that
Coburg was at a crucial point and the Department of Environmental Quality had
just declared the area north of Coburg through Linn County a groundwater
sensitive area because of nitrates and other factors.He said it was important to let Coburg know if the jurisdictions
were willing to be partners.

Ms. Bettman asked if the
findings included with the ordinances distributed to the Eugene City Council
were identical to the findings provided to the other two bodies.Mr. Mott replied that they were the same.

Ms. Bettman said her
understanding was that Coburg wished to conduct an initial study of the issues
and was interested in support from the other jurisdictions that they were
willing to evaluate the feasibility; Coburg was not requesting a plan
amendment.She expressed her concern
about the financial implications because Coburg did not have SDCs (system
development charges), which was what encouraged businesses to locate
there.She said that unless there were
federal or state funds available to assist Coburg to replace the capacity that
it was in deficit of, she could not understand how service could be extended
without the other jurisdictions subsidizing that infrastructure.

Ms. Ballew echoed Ms.
Bettman’s remarks and emphasized that the impacts to Eugene and Springfield
need to be clearly understood before a commitment to extend service to Coburg
was made.

Mayor Torrey suggested that
it would be helpful if the City of Coburg would put in writing those issues to
which they wanted responses from the jurisdictions.

Ms. Fitch commented that
Springfield directed its executive to begin framing the evaluation process and
asked if Lane County and Eugene were providing the same direction to their
staff.

Commissioner Dwyer and Mayor
Torrey indicated that the Lane County and Eugene executives had been asked to
develop information on the issues to be addressed and resources required.